Is a ban, a ban for life?

Please admin?

I don't think there should be a hard-and-fast rule. AB proved time and time again she was only out to vandalize and disrupt, so hers is lifetime. I think anybody who is actually sorry about what they did should at least be considered for un-banning if they request it, though.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't think there should be a hard-and-fast rule. AB proved time and time again she was only out to vandalize and disrupt, so hers is lifetime. I think anybody who is actually sorry about what they did should at least be considered for un-banning if they request it, though.

Well to be frank with you, anyone who is anyone will tell you I hate homophobic behaviour right?

But how did Drinky's "Recipe for Mince Pies" deserve a banning? Yes, you could say that it was intended to be taken as goading - but it was only taken that way if read that way, right?
It is like saying, I am going to arrest and hang Bob Bobson for murder because he wrote a whole story about murder - he used all the right language, he even mentioned the actual weapon which was used so he must have murdered Rich Richson!
Isn't that a tad unfair?

Also, why did you ban Liberal Revival? hat did he do exactly?


I want you to understand, I am not defending any nasty or actual homophobic language or insult that drinky may have used against any gay member - I'm the first to disagree - and I am also not always a fan of drinky's views either (though he has never been rude to me, grumpy and frustrated, yes, but not rude), so I want to know how you can ban someone for what amounts to your interpretation of a post?

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't think there should be a hard-and-fast rule. AB proved time and time again she was only out to vandalize and disrupt, so hers is lifetime. I think anybody who is actually sorry about what they did should at least be considered for un-banning if they request it, though.

Well to be frank with you, anyone who is anyone will tell you I hate homophobic behaviour right?

But how did Drinky's "Recipe for Mince Pies" deserve a banning? Yes, you could say that it was intended to be taken as goading - but it was only taken that way if read that way, right?
It is like saying, I am going to arrest and hang Bob Bobson for murder because he wrote a whole story about murder - he used all the right language, he even mentioned the actual weapon which was used so he must have murdered Rich Richson!
Isn't that a tad unfair?

Also, why did you ban Liberal Revival? hat did he do exactly?


I want you to understand, I am not defending any nasty or actual homophobic language or insult that drinky may have used against any gay member - I'm the first to disagree - and I am also not always a fan of drinky's views either (though he has never been rude to me, grumpy and frustrated, yes, but not rude), so I want to know how you can ban someone for what amounts to your interpretation of a post?

He didn't just mention mince pies though, did he?   

1) There was no other way to interpret the post, 2) He admitted it was about Catman, 3) I warned him several times, at which point he 4) expressed to me via PM (documented in another thread) that he had no intention of stopping it. It was a judgement call based on all these things.

LR was banned because he *was* Drinky.

Ben_Reilly wrote:1) There was no other way to interpret the post, 2) He admitted it was about Catman, 3) I warned him several times, at which point he 4) expressed to me via PM (documented in another thread) that he had no intention of stopping it. It was a judgement call based on all these things.

LR was banned because he *was* Drinky.

Well I disagree about other ways to interpret the post:
http://www.food24.com/News-and-Guides/Features/Rude-food-20121005

"Caro de Waal has a giggle over food terms with rude double meanings.
Food can be really funny if you throw your mind in the gutter a little.
I remember getting those choker giggles at cooking school when the teacher waxed lyrical about ‘whipping the cream to soft… or hard peaks’ or ‘saucing the meat’, ‘balling’ the melon (ha ha… balls) and my personal fave ‘now students, if you give your choux pastries a little prick, the steam will be released’. *giggles*
Food terms are also a touch risqué; I mean how about an ‘Amuse bouche’ – the chefs compliment – pronounced literally 'a-'myuz bush'; my bush? Your bush? The chefs bush?
And this old fave, how many times have you heard someone say, what are the ‘whores d’errves’?"

Just double entrendres....am I calling you a whore? Or a prick?
Maybe I am, maybe I just picked that particular paragraph from endless "rude recipes"

Anyway, my main point is the thread title: Is drinky banned for life?
Will he get banned in every ID you discover him as?

I just think, if someone came back and didn't break the rules, yet they had previously been banned, they should not be banned again.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:1) There was no other way to interpret the post, 2) He admitted it was about Catman, 3) I warned him several times, at which point he 4) expressed to me via PM (documented in another thread) that he had no intention of stopping it. It was a judgement call based on all these things.

LR was banned because he *was* Drinky.

Well I disagree about other ways to interpret the post:
http://www.food24.com/News-and-Guides/Features/Rude-food-20121005

"Caro de Waal has a giggle over food terms with rude double meanings.
Food can be really funny if you throw your mind in the gutter a little.
I remember getting those choker giggles at cooking school when the teacher waxed lyrical about ‘whipping the cream to soft… or hard peaks’ or ‘saucing the meat’,  ‘balling’ the melon (ha ha… balls) and my personal fave ‘now students, if you give your choux pastries a little prick, the steam will be released’. *giggles*
Food terms are also a touch risqué; I mean how about an ‘Amuse bouche’ – the chefs compliment – pronounced literally 'a-'myuz bush'; my bush? Your bush? The chefs bush?
And this old fave, how many times have you heard someone say, what are the ‘whores d’errves’?"

Just double entrendres....am I calling you a whore? Or a prick?
Maybe I am, maybe I just picked that particular paragraph from endless "rude recipes"

Anyway, my main point is the thread title: Is drinky banned for life?
Will he get banned in every ID you discover him as?

I just think, if someone came back and didn't break the rules, yet they had previously been banned, they should not be banned again.

Eddie, he did the same 'mince' thread on SF as well to get at me!

I'm sure that one of the moderators from there will remember that one!

eddie wrote:I just think, if someone came back and didn't break the rules, yet they had previously been banned, they should not be banned again.

That is an interesting point, and let me just say this. If someone were to come back and abide by the rules without trying to call attention to who they were before -- I don't see a problem with that.

The only thing is, that scenario is highly unrealistic in my experience, as people who sneak back on after being banned seem to be unable to help themselves from advertising their cleverness.

I asked Drinky -- "will you apologize, will you abide by the rules." Never got an apology or any promise to follow the rules. So why should I feel bad about this exactly?

I think 99.9% of people reading the 'Mince' post would find it highly amusing and only a militant Gay would find it not.

You do? I'm not in the least surprised. However, I think the opposite.

Puriel wrote:
I think 99.9% of people reading the 'Mince' post would find it highly amusing and only a militant Gay would find it not.

Well, Puriel, that doesn't matter in the least seeing as it's not allowed here. You can always start your own free forum, I might even sign up.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I just think, if someone came back and didn't break the rules, yet they had previously been banned, they should not be banned again.

That is an interesting point, and let me just say this. If someone were to come back and abide by the rules without trying to call attention to who they were before -- I don't see a problem with that.

The only thing is, that scenario is highly unrealistic in my experience, as people who sneak back on after being banned seem to be unable to help themselves from advertising their cleverness.

I asked Drinky -- "will you apologize, will you abide by the rules." Never got an apology or any promise to follow the rules. So why should I feel bad about this exactly?

I think asking someone to abide by the rules is fair enough, but saying sorry just feels a bit sanctimonious on your part tbh Ben.

Sassy wrote:You do?   I'm not in the least surprised.  However, I think the opposite.

I can't understand why they are trying to influence the way that this forum is run Sass, the traffic and the numbers etc...would demonstrate that it's a very well run forum, so don't mess with the ingredients IMO!   

Sassy wrote:You do?   I'm not in the least surprised.  However, I think the opposite.

Evening sassy, what if the poster, who had posted that, had never before showed signs of homophobia? How would it have been read then?

Paranoia

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Puriel wrote:
I think 99.9% of people reading the 'Mince' post would find it highly amusing and only a militant Gay would find it not.

Well, Puriel, that doesn't matter in the least seeing as it's not allowed here. You can always start your own free forum, I might even sign up.

Or you could come and help me test ADO

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:You do?   I'm not in the least surprised.  However, I think the opposite.

Evening sassy, what if the poster, who had posted that, had never before showed signs of homophobia? How would it have been read then?

I would have thought it was about homosexual people. I don't see how you can take the person who posted it out of the equation anyway, when they have spent most of their time being homophobic.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I just think, if someone came back and didn't break the rules, yet they had previously been banned, they should not be banned again.

That is an interesting point, and let me just say this. If someone were to come back and abide by the rules without trying to call attention to who they were before -- I don't see a problem with that.

The only thing is, that scenario is highly unrealistic in my experience, as people who sneak back on after being banned seem to be unable to help themselves from advertising their cleverness.

I asked Drinky -- "will you apologize, will you abide by the rules." Never got an apology or any promise to follow the rules. So why should I feel bad about this exactly?

I think asking someone to abide by the rules is fair enough, but saying sorry just feels a bit sanctimonious on your part tbh Ben.

In what other way would I know that he regretted breaking the rules?

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:You do?   I'm not in the least surprised.  However, I think the opposite.

Evening sassy, what if the poster, who had posted that, had never before showed signs of homophobia? How would it have been read then?

That's rubbish.

Do a study of all of the gay related threads, it's clear to see that there is universal homophobia, and not just directed at the singular, as i've already demonstrated in one instance.  

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:


I think asking someone to abide by the rules is fair enough, but saying sorry just feels a bit sanctimonious on your part tbh Ben.

In what other way would I know that he regretted breaking the rules?

Who did you expect Drinky to apologise to ?

Puriel wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:


I think asking someone to abide by the rules is fair enough, but saying sorry just feels a bit sanctimonious on your part tbh Ben.

In what other way would I know that he regretted breaking the rules?

Who did you expect Drinky to apologise to ?

I figured he'd offer a general apology in the thread, something like, "Okay, I'm sorry for posting that recipe." If he was so inclined.

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:You do?   I'm not in the least surprised.  However, I think the opposite.

Evening sassy, what if the poster, who had posted that, had never before showed signs of homophobia? How would it have been read then?

Yeah but tbf eds it wasn't was it. And it was laced with extra uses of words a normal recipe wouldn't have. And drinky has form with homophobic language. He even admitted the intent! It was a smart arsed attempt to get around Ben's rules (without actually understanding the point of said rules) and to rile phil- it worked, he got what he wanted, to play the big fat martyr   

feelthelove wrote:Paranoia

FTL??? Who is that aimed at?   

Sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

Evening sassy, what if the poster, who had posted that, had never before showed signs of homophobia? How would it have been read then?

I would have thought it was about homosexual people.   I don't see how you can take the person who posted it out of the equation anyway, when they have spent most of their time being homophobic.  

Are you telling me, that if that was posted by a brand new poster, someone that wasn't suspected of being anyone else, you'd have thought it a homophobic post???

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

Evening sassy, what if the poster, who had posted that, had never before showed signs of homophobia? How would it have been read then?

Yeah but tbf eds it wasn't was it. And it was laced with extra uses of words a normal recipe wouldn't have. And drinky has form with homophobic language. He even admitted the intent! It was a smart arsed attempt to get around Ben's rules (without actually understanding the point of said rules) and to rile phil- it worked, he got what he wanted, to play the big fat martyr   

Les, that isn't what I asked though. I asked this:
What if the poster, who had posted that, had never before showed signs of homophobia? How would it have been read then?

I'll be honest, I wouldn't necessarily have read anything into that. Does that mean I am naive or stupid, or that I am not looking for it?

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I would have thought it was about homosexual people.   I don't see how you can take the person who posted it out of the equation anyway, when they have spent most of their time being homophobic.  

Are you telling me, that if that was posted by a brand new poster, someone that wasn't suspected of being anyone else, you'd have thought it a homophobic post???

With all the extra bits that were put in it, I most certainly would.   Plus, Drinky was posting about it on Flap apparently, not knowing that Ben was a member and logged on.

How about Ben decides what to do, as it's his board and if people don't like it, that's their hard luck, whatever way a decision goes.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Yeah but tbf eds it wasn't was it. And it was laced with extra uses of words a normal recipe wouldn't have. And drinky has form with homophobic language. He even admitted the intent! It was a smart arsed attempt to get around Ben's rules (without actually understanding the point of said rules) and to rile phil- it worked, he got what he wanted, to play the big fat martyr   

Les, that isn't what I asked though. I asked this:
What if the poster, who had posted that, had never before showed signs of homophobia? How would it have been read then?

I'll be honest, I wouldn't necessarily have read anything into that. Does that mean I am naive or stupid, or that I am not looking for it?

Tbh it used words a lot of the time which wouldn't have been in your standard recipe- but maybe it wouldn't have been read that way. However the fact is it was written by someone with form for homophobic language- following repeated uses of it in various posts.

Sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

Are you telling me, that if that was posted by a brand new poster, someone that wasn't suspected of being anyone else, you'd have thought it a homophobic post???

With all the extra bits that were put in it, I most certainly would.   Plus, Drinky was posting about it on Flap apparently, not knowing that Ben was a member and logged on.

How about Ben decides what to do, as it's his board and if people don't like it, that's their hard luck, whatever way a decision goes.

Erm ok, no need to get all snotty Sassy. I am only trying to find something out about what is and isn't allowed, I'm not the enemy!

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

Evening sassy, what if the poster, who had posted that, had never before showed signs of homophobia? How would it have been read then?

Yeah but tbf eds it wasn't was it. And it was laced with extra uses of words a normal recipe wouldn't have. And drinky has form with homophobic language. He even admitted the intent! It was a smart arsed attempt to get around Ben's rules (without actually understanding the point of said rules) and to rile phil- it worked, he got what he wanted, to play the big fat martyr   

Glad that you saw that as well.   

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:

With all the extra bits that were put in it, I most certainly would.   Plus, Drinky was posting about it on Flap apparently, not knowing that Ben was a member and logged on.

How about Ben decides what to do, as it's his board and if people don't like it, that's their hard luck, whatever way a decision goes.

Erm ok, no need to get all snotty Sassy. I am only trying to find something out about what is and isn't allowed, I'm not the enemy!

I wasn't getting snotty Eddy, I know you are not the enemy, but it does seem very unfair that every single decision Ben takes gets questioned and threads put up about it.

Just had a look at that 'recipe' again. The sentence: Deep inhalations a flaky mince you say but in fairness we have more experience with a flaky mince on these forums than most. should show exactly what he was up to.

Catman wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Yeah but tbf eds it wasn't was it. And it was laced with extra uses of words a normal recipe wouldn't have. And drinky has form with homophobic language. He even admitted the intent! It was a smart arsed attempt to get around Ben's rules (without actually understanding the point of said rules) and to rile phil- it worked, he got what he wanted, to play the big fat martyr   

Glad that you saw that as well.   

I think you all seem to be missing the point. I know how drinky behaved but that wasn't my queston.

OK, just pulled up that "recipe" and let's analyze, shall we? I'm going to bold the parts that were obviously either anti-gay slurs, or directed at Catman, and we can all take a look at it and see:

No Minces are Fruits dried Fruits to be precise. The Fruits are suspended in a rich liquid that sometimes contains alcohol.



Personally I dislike alcoholic minces they leave a bitter taste in the mouth and are high maintenance in the cooking process. They always demand extra attention and can be unstable.

The big change with my recipe is this is a flaky mince.  Deep   inhalations a flaky mince you say but in fairness we have more experience with a flaky mince on these forums than most. Flaky pastry also called Rough Puff pastry on the BBC website http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/2403/roughpuff-pastry-



Now mince selection I recommend the better quality refined minces not the coarse minces that can be found in the cheap stores. I personally recommend Marks and Spencers extra Fruit mince.



Finally Summer mince pies are square and don’t fit in, normal baking tins. We shall prepare two rectangles of our flaky pastry mix and interleave the mince meat.  With the edges crimped and sealed we shall then divide the rectangle into ten squares and again crimp and seal the edges to stop the mince getting out. It is important that the mince is contained because it can make a terrible mess.



Finally pop in the oven on 200c Gas Mark 6 for twenty minutes until golden brown



There you have it friends next time I shall be doing Fairy Cakes Enjoy.

That's just a quick look at the stuff that leaped out, I may have missed some other references.

No offense, but you have to be pretty thick to miss the intent.

eddie wrote:

Catman wrote:

Glad that you saw that as well.   

I think you all seem to be missing the point. I know how drinky behaved but that wasn't my queston.

I get your point Eddie and it has nothing really to do with drinky but how people perceive a post dependent on who posts it!

PhilDidge wrote:

eddie wrote:

I think you all seem to be missing the point. I know how drinky behaved but that wasn't my queston.

I get your point Eddie and it has nothing really to do with drinky but how people perceive a post dependent on who posts it!

Deep inhalations a flaky mince you say but in fairness we have more experience with a flaky mince on these forums than most. is flipping bloody obvious.

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I get your point Eddie and it has nothing really to do with drinky but how people perceive a post dependent on who posts it!

Deep inhalations a flaky mince you say but in fairness we have more experience with a flaky mince on these forums than most. is flipping bloody obvious.

Why are you posting me something of no point to me stating I understand what Eddie is saying?

Did I make comment on if in this instance this was right?

No, again you jump in the fool over not understanding a reply to a poster, for once have some respect for the fact people understand why this post would be seen homophobic and the point Eddie is getting at.

You have such little respect you think every one is thick

PhilDidge wrote:

eddie wrote:

I think you all seem to be missing the point. I know how drinky behaved but that wasn't my queston.

I get your point Eddie and it has nothing really to do with drinky but how people perceive a post dependent on who posts it!

Exactly.

I have re-read the recipe (I actually agree, I hate alchohol in my mince pies too actually lol, also in my trifles....).
I can see the jibes and yes they are clear when you KNOW what you're looking for because of who posted it!
I guess really, if he hadn't have mentioned about people on the forum it would've been less obvious.....

Ok point conceded on that one people, but my other main question remains:

Should banned mean banned for life?

PhilDidge wrote:

eddie wrote:

I think you all seem to be missing the point. I know how drinky behaved but that wasn't my queston.

I get your point Eddie and it has nothing really to do with drinky but how people perceive a post dependent on who posts it!

Thanks Didge, that is what I meant x

Here's some of Drinky's commentary on his "recipe" from IAF, pretty damning stuff if you ask me:

IT was intended to show Ben if he could leave avatars with "I going to f**k you up you Tory C-nt" and ban a word like Mince that I could be clever and make my point.

Balance was all I sort. Yes of course it was a wind up, a wind up of Ben and as a bonus Phil. I have no regrets clearly Ben is a Mince as well.

He need only to have banned me the histrionic waste of space.

Ben thinks that the end of it, it has only just begun methinks.

I was deliberately winding M'Lud s its fair do's really. Ben' s very naive though he will have to ban every RWer to appease the mincescum and Sassy so the forum may reopen but not for long.

I have some rather good spoofs in preparation I'll get them posted by a friend.

I knew I'd be banned I decided it might as well be sooner when I realise Ben was very much I the image of Mincescum and Sassy. Yes this is unimportant I'm just surprised you jumped ship straight away when a little reciprocity might have been in order.

No worries as you say no one was harmed.

I'll be back as Arnold says.

FFS Didge the first act after I joined on the part of Mince was to Post the header "tory C-nts"

I retaliated in a rather more subtle manner than he did. I'm convinced Ben is a duplicate of Phil maybe a sober version.

I can return to that forum any time I like, watch me. Xenophile(Ben) isn't the only lurker.

Ben is as balanced as Kim Il Seuong as it will become clear in due course.

I shall watch Phil drive him mad with glee. Phil has a habit of turning on everyone.

OK, I think that's enough.

eddie wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I get your point Eddie and it has nothing really to do with drinky but how people perceive a post dependent on who posts it!

Thanks Didge, that is what I meant x

I know hun, just saying I understand your view point, it also has merit, being people will act different to a post defendant on who does post it.

x

Tbh with all those messages from Drinky I wouldn't be having him back- I mean seriously what would be the damn point?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Here's some of Drinky's commentary on his "recipe" from IAF, pretty damning stuff if you ask me:

IT was intended to show Ben if he could leave avatars with "I going to f**k you up you Tory C-nt" and ban a word like Mince that I could be clever and make my point.

Balance was all I sort. Yes of course it was a wind up, a wind up of Ben and as a bonus Phil. I have no regrets clearly Ben is a Mince as well.

He need only to have banned me the histrionic waste of space.

Ben thinks that the end of it, it has only just begun methinks.

I was deliberately winding M'Lud s its fair do's really. Ben' s very naive though he will have to ban every RWer to appease the mincescum and Sassy so the forum may reopen but not for long.

I have some rather good spoofs in preparation I'll get them posted by a friend.

I knew I'd be banned I decided it might as well be sooner when I realise Ben was very much I the image of Mincescum and Sassy. Yes this is unimportant I'm just surprised you jumped ship straight away when a little reciprocity might have been in order.

No worries as you say no one was harmed.

I'll be back as Arnold says.

FFS Didge the first act after I joined on the part of Mince was to Post the header "tory C-nts"

I retaliated in a rather more subtle manner than he did. I'm convinced Ben is a duplicate of Phil maybe a sober version.

I can return to that forum any time I like, watch me. Xenophile(Ben) isn't the only lurker.

Ben is as balanced as Kim Il Seuong as it will become clear in due course.

I shall watch Phil drive him mad with glee. Phil has a habit of turning on everyone.

OK, I think that's enough.

I think its unfair to punish people on here for what is said elsewhere. You didnt go on flap as Ben did you?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Here's some of Drinky's commentary on his "recipe" from IAF, pretty damning stuff if you ask me:

IT was intended to show Ben if he could leave avatars with "I going to f**k you up you Tory C-nt" and ban a word like Mince that I could be clever and make my point.

Balance was all I sort. Yes of course it was a wind up, a wind up of Ben and as a bonus Phil. I have no regrets clearly Ben is a Mince as well.

He need only to have banned me the histrionic waste of space.

Ben thinks that the end of it, it has only just begun methinks.

I was deliberately winding M'Lud s its fair do's really. Ben' s very naive though he will have to ban every RWer to appease the mincescum and Sassy so the forum may reopen but not for long.

I have some rather good spoofs in preparation I'll get them posted by a friend.

I knew I'd be banned I decided it might as well be sooner when I realise Ben was very much I the image of Mincescum and Sassy. Yes this is unimportant I'm just surprised you jumped ship straight away when a little reciprocity might have been in order.

No worries as you say no one was harmed.

I'll be back as Arnold says.

FFS Didge the first act after I joined on the part of Mince was to Post the header "tory C-nts"

I retaliated in a rather more subtle manner than he did. I'm convinced Ben is a duplicate of Phil maybe a sober version.

I can return to that forum any time I like, watch me. Xenophile(Ben) isn't the only lurker.

Ben is as balanced as Kim Il Seuong as it will become clear in due course.

I shall watch Phil drive him mad with glee. Phil has a habit of turning on everyone.

OK, I think that's enough.

I didn't need the examples Ben, I know what he meant lol
I figure you're not getting my point but it doesn't matter anymore  :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

eddie wrote:

Thanks Didge, that is what I meant x

I know hun, just saying I understand your view point, it also has merit, being people will act different to a post defendant on who does post it.

x

Yep! It's happened to me plenty, and to you too x

NemsAgain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Here's some of Drinky's commentary on his "recipe" from IAF, pretty damning stuff if you ask me:













OK, I think that's enough.

I think its unfair to punish people on here for what is said elsewhere. You didnt go on flap as Ben did you?

Very true.

Ben he is wound up, I see it and you do also, hence now why it is eating at him, he like you has formed a perception of each other, it then takes hold and people do not stop until one tires of it.

This is not like Drinky and to me both of you have made it a personal test between you with a case of battle of wills. To be honest you should not draw yourself into such a thing, as if he sees you are not then he will realise what he is trying to obtain is impossible, as you have denied him satisfaction, which is what he wants.

So I hope he drops this battle and wants to come back and debate!

I didn't ban him for what he said there -- all of this came after the ban. I only published it so people could see what Drinky's intent was -- both with the recipe, and what he plans to do here -- in his own words.

No, I didn't use ben_reilly as my name there. I joined last fall because I wanted to see what a few people here who had started to make trouble were like over there.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I didn't ban him for what he said there -- all of this came after the ban. I only published it so people could see what Drinky's intent was -- both with the recipe, and what he plans to do here -- in his own words.

No, I didn't use ben_reilly as my name there. I joined last fall because I wanted to see what a few people here who had started to make trouble were like over there.

Ben again do not take this personal, I see your view point and others, it is your forum after all and people will question rulings on a forum.
Its your decision at the end of the day

I hope that eventually people will settle down and we can all post in both places.
I don't believe in permanent bans for anyone, in any place.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I didn't ban him for what he said there -- all of this came after the ban. I only published it so people could see what Drinky's intent was -- both with the recipe, and what he plans to do here -- in his own words.

No, I didn't use ben_reilly as my name there. I joined last fall because I wanted to see what a few people here who had started to make trouble were like over there.

Well Dean knew it was you so you didnt really need to 'sneak' on there. Isnt that what you accused LR of doing here, sneaking on?